Steve Atkins wrote:
On May 20, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
That's all DKIM guarantees. It's
not in DKIM's scope to tell mail receivers what to do with the
message, signed text or otherwise. Stupid receivers are free as
always
to do stupid things. Smart receivers are free as always to do smart
things. As is ever was.
Sure. The question is whether we want to have the spec encourage smart
behavior or encourage stupid behavior.
The existence of l= certainly allows stupid behavior, and probably
encourages it.
Cheers,
Steve
Hence the DKIM policy hypocrisy. Policy Protocols are not being
worked out, yet, we have all these questionable subjective policy
based decisions being made to the DKIM base protocol that really are
not universal agreements, and like much of the decisions made based on
rough consensus, DKIM has been crippled and stagnated in many ways.
There are useful ideas for l= and like the cautions we can apply to
many useful ideas, this is no different. If a feature or idea
usefulness or lack of was obvious that would be one thing, but it isn't.
DKIM needs stability so that WIDER ADOPTION of implementators across
all markets and operations can a) take it seriously to see how it can
provide a payoff, b) see how it integrated into their frameworks and
c) see how policy can be wrapped around it.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html